Pension Postcode Lottery

Once again justifying it's "Daily Fail" title, the mail prints this article.

If someone said to you: "I'm going to give you £100, if each year you then give me a certain amount back until I die." What questions would you ask before accepting the offer?  Certainly, how long they're likely to live would be one of them...  If someone's on their last legs and the doctor thinks they've only got a couple of years left in them, you'd give them a lot more than if they're hale and hearty and likely to live for 40+ years.

According to the mail, this is unfair. 

It's a well known fact that people in different areas live different lengths of time.  How is it wrong for insurers to take this into account?  The EU have already said that they can't take into account the fact that women live longer than men (which - if it's anything like the last big change to pensions back in 1990 just means that most people will now get the lower rates), so the insurance companies need to take into account other factors.  Isn't it fairer that everyone gets a reasonable return on their money over the whole period of the annuity, rather than the people in the affluent, healthy areas getting a lot more money than the people in the crappy areas (over the length of the annuity)?


"Fred Ford , 67, a finance director and semi-professional magician, lives in Biggleswade, Beds, with his wife Dorothy (pictured above)... living in Basildon, Essex, would have boosted his income by almost £300 a year. He says: ‘I think it’s unfair. It should be about the lifestyle you choose as an individual, not where you live.’"

I wonder if he's quite cottoned on to the fact that people in Essex live shorter lives.  Would he be willing to make that exchange?  (Imagine if an insurance company did offer lowered rates, in return for your taking a daily cyanide pill, or somesuch...)

Incidentally, if you're applying for an annuity, do make sure to tell the insurers about all of your vices.  If you smoke, for example, most insurers will offer an enhanced annuity rate - although they do periodically check up on these things, so don't be tempted to lie...

Fairness

According to a recent survey, the great British public believe that welfare shouldn't just be handed out willy nilly, people should get off their backsides and do some work, and that a life on benefits is not something to be proud of.

Can't say I disagree...

New site - worth reading

The Orphans of Liberty site has just been launched.  As I already read a lot of the contributors, I plan to follow this site and see what the others are like, and it all looks great so far.  Check it out:

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/

What gender pay gap?

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about the male-female wage gap.  Apparently there isn't one...  I've not seen it reported elsewhere so thought I'd encourage others to go and read :-)

Just got back

I've just got back from holiday in Scotland - we had a lovely time, but there was a lot of driving (1600 or so miles in the last week).  I'll be posting more this week, but in the meantime here are a couple of pics of our little pup after the break (click for higher resolution):

The Law is an Ass (aka an example of how government writes laws without understanding how and why laws work)

As some of you may be aware, I work in pensions.  Currently my job title is Subject Matter Expert Project Technician, which doesn’t mean a lot to anyone.  It may help shed a little light on the subject if I tell you that my Subject Matter is Defined Benefit pensions, particularly those in wind up or in financial difficulty.

Android app

Just a quick aside to mention that my android app is now on over 100 phones :-)

more details here if anyone's interested

The Budget: Take with one hand and give with the other?

According to the BBC:

George Osborne has cancelled next month's 4p rise in fuel duty in what he has billed his "Budget for growth".

A further 1p will be cut from pump prices at 6pm - all paid for by a £2bn tax on oil companies.

Now I could be wrong, but my guess is that the oil companies will need to find the money for this from somewhere.  And what's the most likely source of this revenue?  My guess would be petrol price increases.

So the government are reducing fuel duty by creating more tax for oil companies to pay - which is likely to push up the petrol price.  Anyone else see the problem with this? (or am I somehow reading it wrong?)

Now Hunt Saboteurs are protected by Law - what next?

Ok, I know that it's in the daily fail, but this story seems slightly bonkers to me.  Surely if his "deeply held" beliefs "that people should live their lives with mindful respect for animals and we all have a moral obligation to live in a way which is kind to each other, our environment and our fellow creatures" are that important, then so are any other strongly held beliefs.

So what about cases like this, this and this. As far as I know, it's still illegal to be a BNP member and a police officer - what about the "deeply held" beliefs of BNP members?

(And I do feel that I should mention here, I am not in the BNP, nor do I approve of their stance, but people can believe whatever the hell they want to believe.  Free speech is more than just a soundbite - it's something that's sadly absent in the UK.  And think about it: a police officer who was a BNP member would have to be extra careful not to engage in anything that might look even slightly racist while on duty, else the defense in court would have a field day with him - so if anything, he'd be less racist than the average police officer.  I think the best way to deal with groups like the BNP is to let them have their say, then debate it with them...)

Sickness

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/24/young-british-claim-disability-benefits

"Young people in the UK are twice as likely as their counterparts in other rich countries to be so seriously ill or incapacitated that they cannot work and must live off disability benefits, an international study on welfare has found."

Surely that should read: "Young people in the UK are twice as likely as their counterparts in other rich countries to claim to be so seriously ill or incapacitated that they cannot work and must live off disability benefits, an international study on welfare has found."

"The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said it was an "extremely worrying fact" that among 20- to 34- year-olds, rates for disability payments are around 2% in most countries, but 4% in the UK."

No kidding

"Chris Grayling, the work and pensions minister, said he thought the high rates in the UK were a result of 'more children growing up in workless households than in other parts of Europe. Growing up with high levels of dependency shapes your outlook.'

Around 2 million children live in households where no one works – one in six youngsters in Britain. This rate is almost twice the EU average."

Sounds about right - so why not (a) make it so that benefits are always worse than working, by a significant amount (ffs, it's meant to be a safety net, not a hammock) and (b) discourage the continued spawning by those who are not working (when the system makes it impossible for people in low paying jobs to afford kids, but those with no jobs are advantaged by having kids, something is wrong)

"The report says ... there has been a "big shift" in the reasons for making a disability benefit claim. Mental health problems have replaced physical causes for long-term sickness payments."

That might be because we're checking for physical problems now.  If you can fake a mental illness, you've got it made.

"In Britain, two-fifths of those claiming benefits because of depression or mental health issues are aged between 20 and 34."

See above.

"Professor Malcolm Harrington, the occupational health specialist tasked with improving the government's medical assessments, has told ministers that 'people do not attempt to get benefits by pretending they are mentally ill'."

Oh, well that's ok then.  He's a Professor, so he must know what he's talking about...

"In the mid-eighties, the number of people receiving unemployment benefit was "three or four times" higher than those claiming disability benefit. But an inexorable rise in claims saw the number of people on disability benefits exceed the number of unemployed in 1997.

Today 7% of Britons of working age receive disability benefit, above the OECD average of 5.7%. In Japan the comparable figure is less than 2%."

WTF?  7% of our working age population are apparently so disabled that they can't work?  Seriously, that can't be right.  And there were more people disabled than unemployed?  I really hope that's no longer true...